# Full text of "Central and non-central limit theorems in a free probability setting"

## See other formats

```Central and non-central limit theorems
in a free probability setting

Ivan Nourdin*
Universite de Lorraine, Institut de Mathematiques Elie Cartan
Faculte des Sciences et Techniques, Campus Aiguillettes,
B.P. 70239, 54506 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy Cedex, France
>^

C\$ ■ and

Fondation des Sciences Mathematiques de Paris
IHP, 11 rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
inourdinOgmail . com

Boston University, Departement of Mathematics
111 Cummington Road, Boston (MA), USA

May 31, 2012

Abstract

Long-range dependence in time series may yield non-central limit theorems. We show that
there are analogous time series in free probability with limits represented by multiple Wigner
integrals, where Hermite processes are replaced by non-commutative Tchebycheff processes. This
includes the non-commutative fractional Brownian motion and the non-commutative Rosenblatt
process.

AMS subject classifications: 46L54; 60H05; 60H07.

Keywords and phrases: Central limit theorem; Non-central limit theorem; Convergence in
distribution; Fractional Brownian motion; Free Brownian motion; Free probability; Rosenblatt
process; Wigner integral.

'Ivan Nourdin was partially supported by the ANR Grants ANR-09-BLAN-0114 and ANR-10-BLAN-0121 at
Universite de Lorraine.

^Murad S. Taqqu was partially supported by the NSF Grant DMS-1007616 at Boston University.

1

1 Introduction and main result

Normalized sums of i.i.d. random variables satisfy the usual central limit theorem. But it is now
well-known that this is not necessarily the case if the i.i.d. random variables are replaced by a
stationary sequence with long-range dependence, that is, with a correlation which decays slowly as
the lag tends to infinity. We want to investigate whether similar non- central results hold in the free
probability setting.

We are motivated by the fact that there is often a close correspondence between classical
probability and free probability. For example, the Gaussian law has the semicircular law as an
analogue, hence the notion of a stationary semicircular sequence with a given correlation function.
Multiple Wiener integrals which span the so-called Wiener chaos have multiple Wigner integrals
as an analogue, with Hermite polynomials being replaced by Tchebycheff polynomials. We will see
that the notion of Hermite rank is to be replaced by the Tchebycheff rank and that long-range
dependence in the free probability setting also yields non-standard limits which are somewhat
analogous to those in classical probability. In classical probability, the limits can be represented by
multiple Wiener integrals. In free probability, they are represented by multiple Wigner integrals
with similar kernels. Finally, the Hermite processes that appear in the limit in the usual probability
setting are replaced, in the free probability setting, by non- commutative Tchebycheff processes.

Before stating our main results, let us describe their analogue in the classical probability
framework. Let Y = {Y^ : k £ Z} be a stationary Gaussian sequence on a probability space
(Q,J=',P), with E[Y k ] = and E[Y^} = 1, and let p(k - I) = E[Y k Yi] be its correlation kernel.
(Observe that p is symmetric, that is, p(n) = p(—n) for all n ^ 1.) Let Ho(y) = 1, H\{y) = y,
H-2(y) = y 2 — 1, H?j{y) = y 3 — 3y, . . ., denote the sequence of Hermite polynomials (determined by
the recursion yH^ = H^+i + kH^—i), and consider a real- valued polynomial Q of the form

Q(y) = Y j a s H s (y), (1.1)

s^q

with q 1 and a q ^ 0, and where only a finite number of coefficients a s are non zero. The integer
q is called the Hermite rank of Q. Finally, set

[nt] [nt]

W n (Q,t) = Y J Q(Yk) = Y, a °Y, H °( Y ^> ( L2 )

k=l s^q k=l

The following theorem is a summary of the main findings in Breuer and Major [4], Dobrushin
and Major [5] and Taqqu [15, 16]. Here and throughout the sequel, the notation 'f.d.d.' stands for
the convergence in finite-dimensional distribution.

Theorem 1.1. Let Q be the polynomial defined by (1.1) and let W n (Q,-) be defined by (1-2).
1. IfJ2k<=z \p(k)\ q is finite, then, as n — )• oo,

W n (Q,

f.d.d.

n

with B a classical Brownian motion.

2. Let L : (0, oo) —> (0, oo) be a function which is slowly varying at infinity and bounded away
from and infinity on every compact subset of [0, oo). If p has the form

p(k) = k~ D L{k), fc > 1, (1.4)

2

with < D < -, then, as n — > oo,

W„(Q, •) f.d.d. a q

X K l-qD/2,qi )

where R\- q D/2,q * s ^ e Hermite process of parameter 1 — qD/2.

For background on the notions of Hermite processes, see Dobrushin and Major [5], Embrechts
and Maejima [6], Peccati and Taqqu [14], and Taqqu [15, 16, 17]. A slowly varying function at
infinity L(x) is such that lim :r _ >00 L{cx) / L(x) = 1 for all c > 0. Constants and logarithm are slowly
varying. A useful property is the Potter's bound (see [3, Theorem 1.5.6, (ii)]): for every 5 > 0,
there is C = C(S) > 1 such that, for all x,y > 0,

^< -{(=)'.(=r}.

When p is given by (1.4), then

fcez k

When D > 1/q, one says that the process X has short-range dependence. When < D < 1/q, one
says that it has long-range dependence. In the critical case D = 1/q, the series may be finite or
infinite, depending on the precise value of L; this is the reason why we do not investigate this case
further in Theorem 1.1 nor in the forthcoming Theorem 1.2.

We now state our main result, which may be regarded as a non-commutative counterpart of
Theorem 1.1. Some of the terms and concepts of free probability used here are defined in Section
2 which introduces free probability in a nutshell.

Let X = {Xk : k € Z} be a stationary semicircular sequence on a non-commutative probability
space if), assume that f{X^) = and <f{X%) = 1 and let p(k — I) = </j(AfcA;) be its correlation
kernel. (Observe that p is symmetric, that is, p(n) = p(—n) for all n ^ 1.) Let Uq(x) = 1,
U\(x) = x, Uzix) = x 2 — 1, U^{x) = x 3 — 2x, . . ., denote the sequence of Tchebycheff polynomials of
second kind (determined by the recursion xUk = Ut+i + Ut-i). For a presentation of polynomials
in the classical and free probability setting, see Anshelevich [ ] . Consider a real- valued polynomial
Q of the form

Q(x) = Y j a s U s (x), (1.7)

s^q

with q 1 and a q ^ 0, and where only a finite number of coefficients a s are non zero. The integer
q is called the Tchebycheff rank of Q. Finally, set

[nt] [nt]

v n (Q,t) = Y J Q(Xk) = Y J a sY, u °( x k^ ( L8 )

k=l s^q k=l

Our main result goes as follows:
Theorem 1.2. Let Q be the polynomial defined by (1.7) and let V n (Q, ■) be defined by (1.8).

3

1- IfYlkeZ \p(k)\ q i s finite, then, as n — >■ oo,

V n (Q,-) f.d.d.

71

x 5, (1.9)

with S a free Brownian motion, defined in Section 2. 7.

2. Let L : (0, oo) — > (0, oo) be a function which is slowly varying at infinity and bounded away
from and infinity on every compact subset o/[0,oo). If p has the form (1-4) with < D < ~,
then, as n — >■ oo,

V n (Q,-) f.d.d. a q

X ttl-qD/2,q,

where Ri— q D/2,q *s the qth non- commutative Tchebycheff process of parameter 1 — qD/2,
defined by a multiple Wigner integral of order q. It is given in Definition 3.5.

Let us compare Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2. The fact that (1.9) relies on the free Brownian
motion S implies for example that the marginal distribution of S is not Gaussian but is the
semicircular law defined in Section 2.6, which has, in particular, a compact support. The notion
of free independence is very different from the classical notion of independence as noted in Section
2.5. The resulting multiple integrals are then of a very different nature. Also, since the Hermite
and Tchebycheff polynomials are different, the decomposition of the polynomial Q in Tchebycheff
polynomials is different from its decomposition in Hermite polynomials and, consequently, its
Tchebycheff rank can be different from its Hermite rank. This implies that even the order of
the multiple integral in the limit may not be the same.

In the non-commutative probability context, the exact expression of the underlying law is of
relatively minor importance. Moments are essential. In fact, convergence in law can be defined
in our setting through convergence of moments. Also, in the classical probability setting, one can
consider a function Q(x) in (1.2) which is not necessarily a polynomial. One could possibly do so
as well in the non-commutative probability setting.

The methods of proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are different. The proof of the central limit
theorem in Theorem 1.2 does not need to rely on cumulants and diagrams as in the classical case
(see [4]). It uses a transfer principle established recently in [13] and stated in Proposition 5.1. The
proof of the non-central limit theorem in Theorem 1.2 is much simpler than in the classical proof of
Dobrushin and Major [ ] and Taqqu [15, 16] because it is sufficient here to establish the convergence
of joint moments. Such an approach breaks down in the classical case when q ^ 3 because, there,
the joint moments do not characterize the target distribution anymore.

We proceed as follows. In Section 2, we present free probability in a nutshell and define multiple
Wigner integrals. In Section 3, we introduce the non-commutative fractional Brownian motion,
the non-commutative Rosenblatt process and more generally the non-commutative Tchebycheff
processes, and study some of their basic properties. We compute their joint moments in Section 4.
Theorem 1.2 is proved in Section 5.

4

2 Free probability in a nutshell

2.1 Random matrices

Let {Xij)ij^>\ be a sequence of independent standard Brownian motions, all defined on the same
probability space (Q, J 7 , P). Consider the random matrices

Mt)- fXii{ty

and

n 1 l^ij^n

M n {t) = A ^)+Jn(t)^ (2 n)

where A n (t)* denotes the transpose or adjoint of the matrix A n {t). Thus, M n {t) is self-adjoint.
For each t, A n (t) and M n {t) both belong to s/ n , the set of random matrices with entries in
L°°~(il) = n p >iL p (il), that is, with all moments. On s/ n , consider the linear form r n : si n — > R
defined by

"1.

T n (M) = E

-Tr(M)

n

(2.12)

where E denotes the mathematical expectation associated to P, whereas Tr(-) stands for the usual
trace operator. The space (sf n ,T n ) is the prototype of a non- commutative probability space.

Let t/. > . . . > t\ > to = 0. A celebrated theorem by Voiculescu )] asserts that the increments
M n (ti), M n {t,2) — M n (t\), . . . , M n (tk) — M n (tk-i) are asymptotically free, meaning that

r n {Qi(M n (t ix ) - Afnta-i)) . . . Q m (M n (t im ) - M n (ti m _i))) ^0 as n y oo,

for all m ^ 2, all i\, . . . , i m G {1, . . . , k} with i\ ^ %i ^ i%, . . ., i m -i ^ i m , and all real-valued
polynomials Qi, . . . , Q m such that T n (Qi(M n (ti) — M n (tj_i))) — > as n — > oo for each i = 1, . . . ,m.

Let t > 0. The celebrated Wigner theorem [21] can be formulated as follows: as n — > oo, M n (t)
converges in law to the semicircular law of variance t, that is, for any real-valued polynomial Q,

i r 2 ^ 1 ,

T n (Q(M n (t))) -> — / Q{xWU-xHx.
2tte J-2Vi

In the same way as calculus provides a nice setting for studying limits of sums and as classical
Brownian motion provides a nice setting for studying limits of random walks, free probability
provides a convenient framework for investigating limits of random matrices. In the setting of
free probability, free independence (see Section 2.5) replaces independence, increments have a
semicircular marginal law (see Section 2.6) and thus, free Brownian motion (see Section 2.7) which
has these properties, can be used to study random matrices M n (t) for large n. Conversely, one may
visualize free Brownian motion as a large random matrix M n (t).

2.2 Non-commutative probability space

In this paper, we use the phrase "non- commutative probability space" to indicate a von Neumann
algebra £/ (that is, an algebra of operators on a complex separable Hilbert space, closed under
adjoint and convergence in the weak operator topology) equipped with a trace ip, that is, a unital
linear functional (meaning preserving the identity) which is weakly continuous, positive (meaning
(p(X) > whenever X is a non-negative element of si ; i.e. whenever X = YY* for some Y G s/),
faithful (meaning that if <p(YY*) = then Y = 0), and tracial (meaning that (p(XY) = (p(YX) for
all I,y E sf, even though in general XY ^ YX). We will not need to use the full force of this
definition, only some of its consequences. See [11] for a systematic presentation.

5

2.3 Random variables

In a non-commutative probability space, we refer to the self-adjoint elements of the algebra as
random variables. Any random variable X has a law: this is the unique probability measure \i on
M with the same moments as X; in other words, [i is such that

/ Q(x)dfi(x) = <p(Q(X)), (2.13)

for any polynomial Q. (The existence and uniqueness of /i follow from the positivity of <p, see [11,
Proposition 3.13].) Thus ip acts as an expectation. The r n in (2.12), for example, play the role of
(p. Also, while there is a classical random variable IgR with law n, there is, a priori, no direct
relationship between X and X.

2.4 Convergence in law

We say that a sequence (Xx n , . . . ,X kn ), n ^ 1, of random vectors converges in law to a random
vector (Xi t00 , ■ ■ ■ , Xfc )0 o), arid we write

(Xl,n> ■ ■ ■ ) Xk,n) ~\$ (Ai i00 , • • • , Afc )OC ),

to indicate the convergence in the sense of (joint) moments, that is,

lim <p(Q(X ltn ,...,X kjri )) = <p(Q(X 1>00 ,...,X k>00 )), (2.14)

n— >oo

for any polynomial Q in k non-commuting variables. In the case of vectors, there may be no
corresponding probability law fJ,fXi,...,X n ) as i n (2-13), see [11, Lecture 4].

We say that a sequence (F n ) of non- commutative stochastic processes (that is, each F n is a one-
parameter family of self-adjoint operators F n (t) in the non-commutative probability space (&/,(p))
converges in the sense of finite- dimensional distributions to a non-commutative stochastic process
Fqo, and we write

IdA.
± n ' ± oo )

to indicate that, for any k ^ 1 and any ti, . . . , t k ^ 0,

(F n (ti), . . .,F n (t k )) ^ (FooCti), . . . , ^(tfc)).

2.5 Free independence

In the non-commutative probability setting, the notion of independence (introduced by Voiculescu
in [19]) goes as follows. Let . . . , &/ p be unital subalgebras of srf. Let X\, . . . , X m be elements
chosen from among the j^'s such that, for 1 < j < m, two consecutive elements Xj and Xj+i do
not come from the same j^, and such that <p(Xj) = for each j. The subalgebras . . . , srf p are
said to be free or freely independent if, in this circumstance,

l p(X 1 X 2 ---X m ) = 0. (2.15)

Random variables are called freely independent if the unital algebras they generate are freely
independent. Freeness is in general much more complicated than classical independence.
Nevertheless, if X, Y are freely independent, then their joint moments are determined by the

6

moments of X and Y separately as in the classical case. For example, if X, Y are free and m, n ^ 1,
then by (2.15),

<p({X m - p{X m )l){Y n - f(Y n )l)) = 0.
By expanding (and using the linear property of (p) , we get

ip(X m Y n ) = ip(X m )ip(Y n ), (2.16)

which is what we would expect under classical independence. But, by setting X\ = X3 = X — ip{X)l
and X2 = X4 = Y — f(Y) in (2.15), we note that two consecutive Xj do not belong to the same
subalgebra and hence, by (2.15), we also have

<p{{X - if{X)l){Y - ip(Y)l)(X - <p(X)l)(Y - <p(Y)l)) = 0.

By expanding, using (2.16) and the tracial property of ip (for instance ip(XYX) = ip(X 2 Y)) we get

ip(XYXY) = v(y)Mx 2 ) + <p(x)My 2 )-v(x)My) 2 ,

which is different from f(X 2 )f(Y 2 ), which is what one would have obtained if X and Y were
classical independent random variables. Let us note, furthermore, that the relation between
moments and cumulants 1 is different from the classical case (see [11, identity (11.8)]).

2.6 Semicircular distribution

The semicircular distribution S(m,a 2 ) with mean m £ M and variance a 2 > is the probability
distribution ^

S(m,a 2 )(dx) = ^ Aa 2 - (x - m) 2 l{\ x - m \<2a} dx. (2.18)

If m = 0, this distribution is symmetric around 0, and therefore its odd moments are all 0. A
simple calculation shows that the even centered moments are given by (scaled) Catalan numbers:
for non-negative integers k,

/•m+2(T

/ (x-m) 2k S(m,a 2 )(dx) = C k a 2k ,

J m— 2(7

where

k fe+1 \k )

(see, e.g., [11, Lecture 2]). In particular, the variance is a 2 while the centered fourth moment is 2a 4 .
The semicircular distribution plays here the role of the Gaussian distribution. It has the following
similar properties:

1. If S ~ S(m, a 2 ) and a, b £ R, then aS + b ~ S(am + 6, a 2 a 2 ).

Cumulants have the following property which linearizes independence:

Kn(X + Y,...,X + Y)=Kn(X,...,X) + Kn(Y,...,Y), n > 1. (2.17)

Relation (2.17) holds in classical probability if X and Y are independent random variables and it holds in free
probability if X and Y are freely independent (see [I I , Proposition 12.3]). Since the classical notion of independence
is different from the notion of free independence, the cumulants n n in classical probability are different from those in
free probability.

7

2. If Si ~ S(mi,af) and 52 ~ 5(m2, c|) are freely independent, then S1 + S2 ~ S(m\+m2, o\ +
of).

The second property can be readily verified using the i?-transform. The ii-transform of a random
variable X is the generating function of its free cumulants. It is such that, if X and Y are
freely independent, then Rx+y( z ) = Rx{ z ) + Ry{z)- The i?-transform of the semicircular law
is Rs( m ,(T 2 ){ z ) = rn + a 2 z, z G C (see [11, Formula (11.13)]).

2.7 Free Brownian Motion

A one-sided free Brownian motion S = {S(t)}t^o is a non-commutative stochastic process with the
following defining characteristics:

(1) 5(0) = 0.

(2) For t2 > t\ ^ 0, the law of S (£2) — S{t\) is the semicircular distribution of mean and variance
t 2 -ti.

(3) For all n and t n > ■ ■ ■ > ti > t\ > 0, the increments S{t\), Sfo) — S(ti), . . . , S(t n ) — 5(t n _i)
are freely independent.

A two-sided free Brownian motion S = {S(t)} t £M. is defined to be

S(t) =

where S\ and ^2 are two freely independent one-sided free Brownian motions.

Si(t) ifi^O
S 2 (-t) if t <

2.8 Wigner integral

From now on, we suppose that L 2 (W) stands for the set of all real-valued square-integrable functions
on W. When p = 1, we only write L 2 (W) to simplify the notation.

Let S = {S(t)}t£R be a two-sided free Brownian motion. Let us quickly sketch out the
construction of the Wigner integral of / with respect to S. For an indicator function / = lr U) „], the
Wigner integral of / is defined by

\u,v\(x)dS(x) = S(v) - S(u).

We then extend this definition by linearity to simple functions of the form / = J2i=i a i^-[u t ,v t ]^
where [ui,Vi] are disjoint intervals of R. Simple computations show that

<pUf(x)dS(x)\ = (2.19)
92 ( / f(x)dS(x)x [ g(x)dS(x)) = (f,g) L 2 (R) . (2.20)

By approximation, the definition of L f(x)dS(x) is extended to all / E L 2 (R), and (2.19)-
(2.20) continue to hold in this more general setting. As anticipated, the Wigner process
{ Jr f{x)dS(x) : f G L 2 (M)} forms a centered semicircular family in the sense of the forthcoming
Section 2.9.

8

2.9 Semicircular sequence and semicircular process

Let k ^ 2. A random vector (X\, . . . , A^) is said to have a k- dimensional semicircular distribution
if, for every Ai, . . . , \ k £l, the random variable \xX± + . . . + \ k X k has a semicircular distribution.
In this case, one says that the random variables X\ , . . . , X k are jointly semicircular or, alternatively
that {X\i . . . , X k ) is a semicircular vector. As an example, one may visualize the components of the
random vector (X\, . . . , Xj.) as, approximatively, normalized random matrices (M n (ti), . . . , M n (t k ))
in (2.11) with large n.

Let I be an arbitrary set. A semicircular family indexed by I is a collection of random variables
{X{ : i E 1} such that, for every k ^ 1 and every (ii,... ,i k ) G the vector (A^, . . . , Xj fc ) has
a /c-dimensional semicircular distribution. When X = {Aj : i G 1} is a semicircular family for
which I is denumerable (resp. for which / = R+), we say that A is a semicircular sequence (resp.
semicircular process).

The distribution of any centered semicircular family {Aj : i £ 1} turns out to be uniquely
determined by its covariance function r : I 2 — > R given by T(i,j) = <p(XiXj). (This is an
easy consequence of [1 , Corollary 9.20].) When I = Z, the family is said to be stationary if
T(i,j)=T(\i-j\) foralKjeZ.

Let A = { Afc : £ Z} be a centered semicircular sequence and consider the linear span Ji of A,
called the semicircular space associated to X. It is a real separable Hilbert space and, consequently,
there exists an isometry \$ : % — > L 2 (R). For any fc£Z, set = \$(A^); we have, for all fe, / 6 Z,

/ e k (x)ei(x)dx = ip(X k Xi) = T(k,l).

Thus, since the covariance function T of A characterizes its distribution, we have

{X k : k G Z} l = I J e k {x)dS{x) : k G Z j ,

with the notation of Section 2.8.

2.10 Multiple Wigner integral

Let S = {S(t)}t£U be a two-sided free Brownian motion, and let p ^ 1 be an integer. When /
belongs to L 2 (R P ) (recall from Section 2.8 that it means, in particular, that / is real- valued) , we
write /* to indicate the function of L 2 (W) given by f*(h, . . . , t p ) = f(t p , . . . , ti).

Following [2], let us quickly sketch out the construction of the multiple Wigner integral of /
with respect to S. Let A q C R 9 be the collection of all diagonals, i.e.

A q = {(h, ...,t q )eR q : U = tj for some i ^ j}. (2.21)

For a characteristic function / = 1a, where A C R 9 has the form A = [ui,v\] x . . . x with
A n A q = 0, the qth multiple Wigner integral of / is defined by

= (S(vi) - S( Ul )) . . . (S(v q ) - S(u q )).

We then extend this definition by linearity to simple functions of the form / = X^i=i a i^-Ai, where
Ai = [u\, v\] x . . . x [u q , v q ] are disjoint q-dimensional rectangles as above which do not meet the
diagonals. Simple computations show that

= (2.22)
V {I s q {f)I s q {g)) = (f,g*) L * m . (2.23)

9

By approximation, the definition of I q (f) is extended to all / G L 2 (K q ), and (2.22)-(2.23) continue
to hold in this more general setting. If one wants I q (f) to be a random variable in the sense of
Section 2.3, it is necessary that / be mirror symmetric, that is, / = /*, in order to ensure that
is self-adjoint, namely (lf(f))* = I^(f) (see [8]). Observe that lf(/) = J R f{x)dS{x) (see
Section 2.8) when q = 1. We have moreover

v{4U)I S q {9)) = when p^q,fe L 2 (W) and 5 G L 2 (R«). (2.24)

When r G {1, . . . ,p A q}, f € L 2 (M P ) and g G L 2 (M 9 ), let us write f ^ g to indicate the rth
contraction of / and g, defined as being the element of L 2 (W +q ~ 2r ) given by

f^g(t l ,...,t p+q - 2r ) (2.25)

f(tl, • • • , tp— r , X\ , . . . , X r )g(x r , . . . , X\ , tp_ r _(_x , . . . , tp+q—2r)dx\ . . . dx r .

By convention, set f^-g = f®g&s being the tensor product of / and g. Since / and g are
not necessarily symmetric functions, the position of the identified variables (2.25) is

important, in contrast to what happens in classical probability (see [14, Section 6.2]). Observe
moreover that

11/ ^ g\\L 2 (Rp+i- 2r ) ^ II/IU2(]rp)IMIl 2 (ir9) (2.26)

by Cauchy-Schwarz, and also that / A g = {f,g*)L 2 (Rp) when p = q.

We have the following product formula (see [2, Proposition 5.3.3]), valid for any / G L 2 (W) and
g G L 2 (R q ):

pAq

Ip(f)I^9) = E J pV 2 r(/ A 9)- (2-27)

r=0

We deduce (by a straightforward induction) that, for any e G L 2 (W) and any q ^ 1,

uJje^dS^ =I S q {e m ), (2.28)

where t/o(x) = 1, C^i(x) = x, C/ 2 (x) = x 2 — 1, ^(x) = x 3 — 2x, . . ., is the sequence of Tchebycheff
polynomials of second kind (determined by the recursion xllk = Uk+i + C^fc-i), J R e(x)dS(x) is
understood as a Wigner integral (as defined in Section 2.8), and e® 9 is the qth tensor product of e,
i.e., the symmetric element of L 2 (JH q ) given by e® q {t\, . . . , t q ) = e(t\) . . . e{t q ).

3 Non-commutative Tchebycheff processes and basic properties

We define first the non-commutative fractional Brownian motion, then the non-commutative
Rosenblatt process, which is a multiple Wigner integral of order 2, and then we introduce the
general non-commutative Tchebycheff processes involving multiple Wigner integrals of arbitrary
order.

3.1 Non-commutative fractional Brownian motion

The classical fractional Brownian motion was introduced by Kolmogorov [9] and developed by
Mandelbrot and Van Ness [10].

10

Definition 3.1. Let H £ (0, 1). A non- commutative fractional Brownian motion (ncfBm in short)
of Hurst parameter H is a centered semicircular process Sh = {Sn(t) ■ t ^ 0} with covariance
function

^S H (t)S H (s)) = ^{t 2H + s 2H -\t-s\ 2H ). (3.29)

It is readily checked that Su2 is nothing but a one-sided free Brownian motion. Immediate
properties of Sh, proved in Corollary 4.4, include the selfsimilarity property (that is, for all a >
the process {a~ H Snictt) : t ^ 0} is a ncfBm of parameter H) and the stationary property of the
increments (that is, for all h > the process {Sji(t + h) — Sn(h) : t ^ 0} is a ncfBm of parameter
H) . Conversely, ncfBm of parameter H is the only standardized semicircular process to verify these
two properties, since they determine the covariance (3.29).

It is interesting to notice that ncfBm may be easily represented as a Wigner integral as follows:

Here, f3 stands for the usual Beta function. In the classical probability case, one has a similar
representation with S replaced by a Brownian motion.

As an illustration, we will now show that normalized sums of semicircular sequences can converge
to ncfBm. Let {X k : k £ Z} be a stationary semicircular sequence with (fi{X k ) = and f{X 2 ) = 1,
and suppose that its correlation kernel p{k — I) = (p^X^Xi) verifies

n

p(k - I) ~ Kn 2H L(n) as n -> 00, (3.30)

k,l=l

with L : (0, 00) — > (0, 00) slowly varying at infinity, < H < 1 and K a positive constant. Consider
the non-commutative stochastic process

[nt]

For any t ^ s ^ 0, we have, as n — > 00,
if [Z n {t)Z n {s)\

\ip [Z n (t) 2 } + \p [Z n (s) 2 ] - \p [(Z n (t) - Z n (s)) 2 ]

[nt] [ns] [nt]

i,J=l V ' i,J=l V ' jj = [ns] + l

[nt] [ns] [nt] — [ns]

2n 2H L(n) ^ ry J ' 2n 2H L(n) ^ rv J/ 2n 2H L(n)

i,j=l *,i=l i , j = 1

^ |(^ + fi 2H _ {t _ s) 2 H) = Klp{ S H{t )S H ( S )).

Let p ^ 1 as well as ii, . . . ,t p ^ 0. Since the X^s are centered and jointly semicircular, the process
Z n is centered and semicircular as well, and we have shown that, as n — > 00,

Z n L ^^KS H .

11

3.2 Non-commutative Rosenblatt process

The Hermite process indexed by q ^ 1 appeared as a limit in Theorem 1.1 in the classical probability
setting. When q = 1, it is fractional Brownian motion. When q = 2, it is the Rosenblatt process,
introduced in Taqqu [ ] and which appears as a limit in many statistical tests. See Taqqu [18] for
a recent overview. We introduce here the non-commutative Rosenblatt process.

Definition 3.2. Let H G (±,1). The non- commutative Rosenblatt process of parameter H is the
non- commutative stochastic process defined by the double Wigner integral

RH(t) = R H A t ) = I 2{fH(t,-)), OO, (3.31)

where

fH(t,x,y) = ^f^ [\s-x)f-\s-y)f- 1 ds, (3.32)

with (3 the usual Beta function.
Using the relations

f(t- x)f~\s - x)J' 1 dx = p£,l-H)\t- s\ H -\

as well as

H(2H-1) ff \t-s\ 2H ~ 2 dsdt = T 2H , T>0, (3.33)

J J[0,T] 2

it is straightforward to check that ip(RH(t) 2 ) = L 2 fii(t,x,y) 2 dxdy = t 2H .

The Rosenblatt process at (fixed) time t is a double Wigner integral whose kernel fii(t,-) is
symmetric, see (3.32). As such, it enjoys useful properties, that we derive now in full generality.
Assume then that / G L 2 (IR 2 ) is a given symmetric kernel. One of the most effective ways of dealing
with if (/) is to associate to / the following Hilbert- Schmidt operator:

A f : L 2 (R) -> L 2 (R); g^ f f(;y)g(y)dy. (3.34)

In other words, Af transforms an element g of L 2 (M) into the contraction / ^ g G L 2 (M).
We write {A/j : j ^ 1} and {e/j : j ^ 1}, respectively, to indicate the eigenvalues of Af and the
corresponding eigenvectors (forming an orthonormal system in L 2 (R)).

Some useful relations between all these objects are explained in the next proposition. The proof,
which is omitted here, relies on elementary functional analysis (see e.g. Section 6.2 in [7]).

Proposition 3.3. Let f be a symmetric element of L 2 (M?), and let the above notation prevail.

1. The series ^/ j converges for every p ^ 2, and f admits the expansion

oo

/ = I^ A /J ( e f,j® e fj)> ( 3 - 35 )

where the convergence takes place in L 2 (R 2 ).

12

2. For every p 2, one has the relations

„ oo

Tr(A p f ) = / /(si, a? 2 ) ■ ■ • f(x p -i, x p )f(x p , xi)dx\ ...dx p = ^ X p fJ) (3.36)

where Tr(A P f) stands for the trace of the pth power of Af.
In the following statement we collect some facts concerning the law of a random variable of the

type/f (/).

Proposition 3.4. Let F = I 2 S (/), where f is a symmetric element of L 2 (R 2 ).

1. The following equality holds:

oo

F ^ £a w (S?-1), (3.37)
i=i

where (Sj)j^i is a sequence of freely independent 5(0, 1) random variables, and the series
converges in L 2 (g/,ip).

2. For every p 2, the pth free cumulant of F is given by the following formula:

Kp(F,...,F)= f(xi,x 2 ) ■ ■ ■ f(x p -i,Xp)f(x p , xi)dx x ...dx p . (3.38)

JRP

Proof. Relation (3.37) is an immediate consequence of (3.35), of the identity

^(%®%)=^i(%) 2 -l>

as well as of the fact that the {e/ •/} are orthonormal (implying that the sequence {if (e/ •/) ■ j ^ 1}
is composed of freely independent 5(0, 1) random variables). To prove (3.38), it suffices to use the
linearization property (2.17) of free cumulants, as well as the fact 2 that

k p (S 2 -1,...,S 2 -1) = k p (S 2 ,...,S 2 ) + k p (-1,...,-1) = Kp (S 2 ,...,S 2 ) = 1

for all p ^ 2, see e.g. [ I I, Proposition 12.13] for the last equality. We thus obtain the desired
conclusion by means of (3.36). □

In the classical probability setting where Sj is M(0, 1), there is an additional factor of 2 p ~ 1 (p— 1)!
in (3.38). See e.g. Taqqu [15].

3.3 Non-commutative Tchebycheff processes

The classical probability versions of these processes are the Hermite processes. See e.g. Peccati-
Taqqu [14, Section 9.5].

Definition 3.5. Let H € (^, 1). The qth non- commutative Tchebycheff process of parameter H is
the non- commutative stochastic process defined by the Wigner integral

R H>q (t) = I^(f H , q (t,-)), t^Q, (3.39)

where

VH(2H - 1) f\ n ,„ ^-(1+^)

. _ 1

j

with f3 the usual Beta function.

f H , g (t,x 1 ,...,x q ) = 1 _ H 2 _ 2H —j^ j (s-xi) + 2 q ...(s-x g ) + 2 q ds, (3.40)

P\2 q ' q )

Since all the free cumulants of S are equal to 1, S has a free Poisson law with mean 1.

13

The process Rn,q becomes the non-commutative fractional Brownian motion and the non-
commutative Rosenblatt process when q = 1 and g = 2 respectively. Note however that when q = 1
the process is defined for H between and 1.

Using the relations

f (t-x)l- 1 (s-x)l- 1 dx = p( 1 ,l-2j)\t-s\ 2 ~ f -\ 0< 7 <l/2, (3.41)
Jr

and (3.33), we easily get that

(p(R H , q (t) 2 ) = f f H , q {t,x 1 ,...,x q ) 2 dx 1 ...dx q =t 2H . (3.42)

JR1

The process Ru,q has stationary increments and is selfsimilar with parameter H, as stated in
Corollary 4.4 below.

4 Computation of joint moments

Let p ^ 2 be a given integer. Let f%, . . . , f p be real functions of qi, ■ ■ ■ ,q p variables respectively.
Write q p = (gi, . . . , q p ). We want to compute

(...((/i-/ 2 )^/3)...) "-fp (4.43)

for some functions /i, ■■■,/« of interest. The contraction operator <~~ is defined in (2.25). The
expression (4.43) makes sense if and only if r = (n, . . . , r p -i) G A(q p ), where ^4(q p ) is the set of
those (n, . . . , r p -i) G {0, . . . , (72} x . . . x {0, . . . , q p } such that

n ^ qi, r 2 ^qi+q2- 2r\, r 3 ^ <?i + g 2 + <?3 - 2ri - 2r 2 ,

• • • , < ^ + . . . + g p _ x - 2n - . . . - 2r p _ 2 , (4.44)

and (4.43) equals a real number if and only if r € B(q p ), where

B(qp) = {r= (n,...,rp_i) G A(q p ) : 2n + . . . + 2r p ^ =qi + ...+q p }. (4.45)

Indeed, for f\ A / 2 to make sense, we need ^ ri ^ q\ A g 2 . Then, for (/1 A / 2 ) ^ f% to make
sense, we need ^ r 2 ^ q^ A (gi + g 2 — 2ri); this is because f\ A / 2 has gi + g 2 — 2rj variables
and /3 has g 3 variables. It follows, by induction, that for (4.43) to make sense, it is necessary that
(r%, . . . ,r p -i) G A(q p ). In order for (4.43) to be a scalar, we need (n, . . . ,r p -%) G B(q p ), since the
number of variables of (4.43) is given by gi + . . . + q p — 2r\ — ... — 2r p _i.

The following lemma gives the value of (4.43) for functions /1, . . . , f p of interest. The result
involves an array of non-negative integers

aij(r), l^i<j^p, (4.46)

which are defined as follows for r G B(q p ). Consider the following figure, where there are gi+. . -+q p
dots. The first gi corresponds to the gi variables of /1, . . ., the last g p dots corresponds to the g p
variables of f p .

We shall associate pairs of dots according to the mechanism described below, and we say that
a dot is available if it has not been associated so far. The association rule, call it (A), involves

14

block 1 block 2 block 3

block 4

Figure 1: p = 4, q\ = 3, q<i = 2, q% = 4 and (?4 = 3

block 1 block 2 block 3 block 4
• • ^ j • • • • • • • •

Figure 2: n = 1

associating the left most available dot in a block with the right most available dot in preceding
blocks.

To perform these associations, proceed as follows. Start with block j = 2 and do t\ associations
with block 1, following the association rule (A).

Proceed to block j = 3, 4, . . . ,p. In block j ^ 3, associate r-,_i dots with available dots in the
preceding blocks following the association rule (A). Once block j = p is done, all dots have been
associated pairwise.

Figure 3 below illustrates an example of associations.

block 1 block 2 block 3 block 4

1 T ! — ? ! — ? ! T ' 1 1

Figure 3: p = 4, q x = 3, q 2 = 2, q 3 = 4, q 4 = 3, r x = 1, r 2 = 2 and r 3 = 3

f 1 1

H

i

Definition 4.1. When r = (ri, . . . , r p -i) £ B(<\ p ), denote by «ij(r) the number of associations
between dots of block j with dots of block i, 1 ^ i < j ^ p.

For instance, in Figure 3, we have

ai2<r) ai 3 (r) a u (r)
a 23 (r) «24(r)
a 34 (r)

The following lemma gives an explicit expression for (4.43) for functions fx, . . . , f q which appear
in the sequel.

Lemma 4.2. Let TcR, and let e : T x M — > M be a measurable function. Fix also integers p ^ 2
and gi, . . . , q p ^ 1, and let ui, . . . , v v be given signed measures on M. Assume further that

|e(s,xi)| . . . \e(s,x qi )\ \vi\(ds)^j dx± . . . dx Qi < oo, i = l,...,p.
Finally, for any i = 1, . . . ,p, define fi : M 9i — > M. to be

fi(xt, . . .,x qi ) = J e(s,xi) . . . e{s,x Qi )vi(ds).

15

Then, for any r = (r±, . . . ,r p -\) G B(q p ) (recall the definition (4-45) of B(<\ p )), we have

r r ( r \ a ij( r )

(• • • ((/i ^ h) ^ /3) • • •) ^ f P = / 1~T ( / e(si,x)e(sj,x)dx ) ^i(dsi) . . . u p {ds p ).

Jtp i^<k p VJk '

Proof. Fix r = (ri, . . . , r p _i) G -B(q p ). We have

{...{{fl^f2)^h)...) r ^f P

(. . . ((e( Sl , - e( S2 , -f 92 ) - e( S3 , O® 93 ) • • •) <s p , ■)®*^(*»0 • • • ^(^)>

TP

where we expressed /, as /j(-) = J T e(s, -)® 9< z/i(ds). What matters in the computation of

(... ((e(si,-)® 91 ^ e(s 2 ,-) 092 ) ™ e(s 3 ,-)® 93 )---) ^ e(s p , O®* is, for each i < j, the number
£%(r) of associations between the block j and the block i. Hence

(. . . ((e( Sl , -f 91 ^ e( S2 , -f 92 ) ^> e( S3 , O^ 93 ) • • •) e(* P , -) 09p

«ij ( r )

n (/«(.,.*)«<.,.*)*

and the desired formula follows. □

We shall apply Lemma 4.2 with a discrete v = ]P 5fc where is Dirac mass, and with a
Lebesgue-type za The following result plays an important role in the proof of the non-central limit
theorem (1.10).

Proposition 4.3. Fix two integers q ^ 1 and p ^ 2, and let ti, ... ,t p 6e positive real numbers.
Set q p = (<7i, . . . , g p ) = (q, . . . ,q). Recall the definition (4-46) of O-ijiv) when r = (n, . . . , G
-B(q p ). Then, the following two assertions hold:

1. Let X = {X k : k G Z} be a stationary semicircular sequence with tp(X k ) = and tp(X?) = 1,
and let p(k — V) = (p(X k Xi) be its correlation kernel. Write U q to indicate the qth Tchebycheff
polynomial, and define

[nt]

G n (t) = Y,U q (X k ), t^O. (4.47)

k=l

Then

[nti] [nt p ]

l p(G n (t 1 )...G n (t p )) = J2---T, E II P^-kjT^. (4.48)

fcl=l kp=l (ri,...,r p _i)e-B(q p ) Ki<j<p

2. Let Rij,q be a qth non- commutative Tchebycheff process of parameter H G (1/2,1). Then

<p(RH,q(tl) . . . R H , q (t P )) (4.49)

H p ' 2 {2H -If/ 2 ^ d Sl ... I'" ds p V II

^■(r)x- 2 - 2 «

,-oj|

(ri,...,r p _i)6B(qp) Ki<KP

Proo/. 1. Let {e fc : kZ}c L 2 (M) be defined as in Section 2.9. In the definition (4.47) of Gni we
can assume without loss of generality that

X k = Lf{e k ) = I e k (x)dS(x), keZ.

16

By virtue of (2.28), we have G n {t) = Ig(g n (t, ■)), with

[nt]

) = ^efc(xi) . . . e k (x q ).
k=l

By the product formula (2.27),

g

G n (t 1 )G n (t 2 )=I^(g n {t 1 ,-))l^(g n (t 2 ,-)) = ^ I\$ q „ 2ri [gn(h,-) ^9n(t2,-))-

n=o

Iterative applications of the product formula (2.27) lead to

G n (h) . . . G n {t p ) (4.50)

Yl I pq-2r 1 -...-2r p ^ 1 ((---((9n(tir) ^Qnfar)) ^ 9n(h, •)) • • •) ^ 9n(tp, ■)) ,

(ri,...,r p _i)GA(q p )

where ^4(q p ) is defined by (4.44). By applying ip to (4.50) and using (2.22), we deduce that the
only non-zero terms occur when pq — 2r\ — ... — 2r p _i = 0. Since Iq{c) = c, c 6 R, we get

v(G«(ti)...Gf„(tp)) (4.51)
= X] ■{(gnihr) ^ g n (hr)) ^ 9n(t3, ■))■■■) ^ 9n(t p ,-),

(ri,...,r p _i)eS(q p )

with -B(q p ) defined by (4.45). Now, recall from Section 2.9 the following property of e^:

e k (x) ei (x)dx = ifiXkXi) = p(k - I). (4.52)

Hence, using Lemma 4.2 with T = Z, Vi = Y^k=i ^ k ^ k being the Dirac mass at k) and
e(k,x) = ep.(x), we obtain the formula (4.48) for (p(G n (t\) . . . G n (t p )).

2. Reasoning as in Point 1 above, we get here that

<p(R H , g (*i)... Rh,Sp)) ( 4 - 53 )

£ (■ • • •) A •)) A •)) • • •) •),

(ri,...,r p _i)e-B(q p )

with i?(q p ) defined by (4.45). Lemma 4.2, with T = R+, measures

. . JH(2H - 1)

V ^ ds ) = p(l l-H ^-2 Hyh 1 %ui S ) ds

■ 2

and the function e(s,x) = (s — x) + 2 9 , then yields, because of (3.41),

(• • • ((Wti, •) - /H, g (<a, •)) " /ff,,(*3, 0) • • •) W*,,, •) (4.54)

F p/ 2(2 ^ _ 1)P / 2 r dsi ,,,r dSp tt

■A) 7o 1 <ri^A<

| ^2 |

By inserting (4.54) in (4.53), we obtain the formula (4.49) for <p(RH,q(ti) ■ ■ ■ RH,q(t P ))- □

17

Corollary 4.4. The non- commutative Tchebycheff process Rn,q has stationary increments and is
selfsimilar with parameter H .

Proof. Since the law is determined by the moments, it suffices to use expression (4.49). Let h > 0.
Replacing RH,q{ti) by RH,g(U + h) — RH, q {h) in the left-hand side of (4.49) changes the integrals
in the right-hand side by integrals fj^ +h - Since this does not modify the right-hand side, the
process RH,q has stationary increments. To prove selfsimilarity, let a > 0, replace each ti, . . . ,t p by
ati, . . . , at p in (4.49) and note that the right-hand side is then multiplied by a factor a pH . □

5 Proof of Theorem 1.2

In the proof of the central limit theorem (1.9), we shall use the following Wiener- Wigner transfer
principle, established in [13, Theorem 1.6]. It provides an equivalence between multidimensional
limit theorems involving multiple Wiener integrals and multiple Wigner integrals respectively,
whenever the limits of the multiple Wiener integrals are normal.

Proposition 5.1. (Statement of [13, Theorem 1.6]) Let d ^ 1 and qi, . . . , be some fixed integers,
and consider a positive definite symmetric matrix c = {c(i,j) : i,j = 1, ...,d}. Let (G\, . . . , G^) be
a d-dimensional Gaussian vector and (Si, . . . , E^) be a semicircular vector, both with covariance
c as defined in Section 2.9. For each i = 1, . . . , d, we consider a sequence {/i,n}n>i of symmetric
functions in L 2 (M. q ^). Let B be a classical Brownian motion and let /<?(•) stand for the qth multiple
Wiener integral. Let S be a free Brownian motion and let Iq(-) stand for the qth multiple Wigner
integral. Then:

1. For all i,j = l,...,d and as n -> oo, <p[/|(/i,„)i|! (fj,n)] -> c(i,j) if and only if
E[l£(fi,n)l£(fj,n)] ->

2. If the asymptotic relations in (1) are verified then, as n — >■ oo,

(/S(/i > »),...,4(/d, n ))^(2i,---,Ed)

if and only if

(i£(/i,„), . . .,/£(/*,„))) l ™ • • • , VW-G d ).

5.1 Proof of the central limit theorem (1.9)

Recall that X = {X^ : k G is a stationary semicircular sequence with (p(Xk) = 0, y(X|) = 1
and correlation p. Consider first its Gaussian counterpart (in the usual probabilistic sense) , namely
Y = {Yk : k £ Z} where Y is a stationary Gaussian sequence with mean and same correlation
p. When dealing with Y, the important polynomials are not the Tchebycheff polynomials but the
Hermite polynomials, defined as Ho(y) = 1, H\{y) = y, #2(2/) = V 2 — 1> H%(y) = y 3 — 3y, . . . , and
determined by the recursion = Hk+\ + kB.^_\.

We assume in this proof that YlkeZ \p(^)\ 9 < 00 ! this implies X^fcez l/ 5 ^)!* < 00 f° r au s ^ Q-
Since Q given by (1.7) is a polynomial, we can choose N large enough so that a s = for all s ^ N.
Set

[nt]

w n (fr s ,t) = £#,(Y fc ), 00, a = ?,..., iv.

fc=i

18

The celebrated Breuer-Major theorem (see [4], see also [12, Chapter 7] for a modern proof, and see
Theorem 1.1, part 1, for the statement) asserts that

W n (H q ,-) W n (H N ,-)\ ( .. ri)

n \ n

converges as n — > oo in the sense of finite-dimensional distributions to

a q ^fq\B q , ...,a N \fW\B N

where a 2 := Ylk&Pi^Y ( s = and B q , . . . , Bjy are independent standard Brownian

motions. (The fact that ^fcez P(^) S ^ is part of the conclusion.) On the other hand, using (2.28)
as well as its Gaussian counterpart (where one replaces, in (2.28), the Tchebycheff polynomial U q
and the free Brownian motion S by the Hermite polynomial H q and the standard Brownian motion
B respectively; see, e.g., [12, Theorem 2.7.7]), we get, for any s = q, . . . , N, that

/ [nt] \ ( [nt]

V n (U s ,t) = if £ ef and W n (H s ,t) = if £ ef

\k=l J \k=l

where the sequence {e^ : k G Z} is as in Section 2.9 and stands for the multiple Wiener

integral of order s with respect to B. We observe that the kernel X/fcfi e f S ^ s a symmetric function
of L 2 (W). Therefore, according to Proposition 5.1 (transfer principle), we deduce that the non-
commutative counterpart of (5.55) holds as well, that is, we have that

V n {U q ,-) V n (U Nr )

n wn

converges as n — > oo in the sense of finite-dimensional distributions to

(a q S q ,...,(TN Sn) ,

where S q , . . . , Sjv denote freely independent free Brownian motions. The desired conclusion (1.9)
follows then as a consequence of this latter convergence, together with the decomposition (1.7) of
Q and the identity in law (see Section 2.6):

a q cF q S q + . . . + a N a N S N '= J a\o 2 q + . . . + a^a]^ X S.

□

5.2 Proof of the non-central limit theorem (1.10)

The proof is more delicate than the one for (1.9). This is because the limit in the usual probability
setting is not Gaussian, since it is given by a multiple Wiener integral of order greater than 1.
Therefore, we cannot use the transfer principle as in (1.9). We need to focus on the detailed
structure of

[nt] N [nt]

V n (Q,t) = a Q Y / U q (X k )+ a s J2u s (X k ). (5.56)

k=l s=q+l k=l

19

where we have again chosen N large enough so that a s = for all s N. The idea of the proof is
to show that, after normalization, the second term in (5.56) is asymptotically negligible, so that it
is sufficient to focus on the first term

[nt]

G n {t) = Y J U q {X k ).

k=l

We can therefore apply Proposition 4.3 which provides, in (4.48), an expression for
<p(G n (ti) . . . G n (t p )) involving multiple sums. We show that the diagonals in these multiple sums
can be excluded (this is step 1 below). We express the remainder as integrals (step 2 below) and
apply the dominated convergence theorem to obtain the expression (4.49) which caracterizes the
qth non-commutative Tchebycheff process Rn,q-

More specifically, fix e G (0, 1]. By virtue of (1.4), there exists an integer M > large enough
so that, for all j > M ,

\p(j)\=r D m^s^i.

For any real t > and any integer s larger than or equal to q + 1 , we can write

2-

1

l-?D/2£( n )<z/2

n

n-

[nt]
v ; k,l=l

(

n 2 -i D L(n)i

[nt] [nt]

k,l=l
k>l+M

\ k,l=l
\\k-l\^M

[nt]

n 1

(5.57)

Since qD < 1, we have that n qD l L\

n

,-9

(to see this, use (1.6) with 1/L instead of L, 1/L

being slowly varying as well). The following lemma is useful at this stage.
Lemma 5.2. When t > is fixed, we have

[nt]

i=i

Int} 1 -^ L(\nt])i
-j i ii — ¥— as n — ^ oo.

1 - qD

(5.58)

Proof. Although this is a somehow standard result in the theory of regular variation (Karamata's
type theorem), we prove (5.58) for sake of completeness. First, observe that

L([nt\)i[ni\

1-qD

[nt]
3=1

l n (x)dx,

where

[nt]

ln(x) =

-qD

1 r J — 1 j \

L [nt] [nt] >

[x).

Since L(j) / L([nt]) = L([nt] x (j /[nt])) / L([nt]) — > 1 for fixed j/[nt] as n — > oo, one has l n {x) — > loo(x)
for x G (0, 1), where loo{x) = x~ qD . By choosing a small enough 5 > so that q(D + S) < 1 (this

20

is possible because qD < 1) and L(j) / L([nt]) ^ C(j/[nt]) s (this is possible thanks to (1.6)), we
get that

[nt] / j \ -q(D+8)

\Ux)\ ^ C V M-t lri=! j^Oc) < for all x G (0, 1).

The function in the bound is integrable on (0, 1). Hence, the dominated convergence theorem yields

it]

L{[nt])i[nt} l -i D ^ J

j) q ^ / loo{x)dx= / x~ qD dx

1

1-gD

which is equivalent to (5.58).

□

Let us go back to the proof of the non-central limit theorem. We have (5.57). But, since
L(\nt])/L{n) — > 1 (i is fixed), we actually get that

i=i

so that, by combining (5.59) and (5.57),
lim sup <p

[nt]

as n — > oo,

(5.59)

i 1 -i D / 2 L(n)i/ 2 ^
Since e > is arbitrary, this implies that

1-qD'

1 ^

n l- g D/2 L(n)g / 2 Z.^(^)^

as 7i — ? oo

for all s ^ (7 + 1. As a consequence, in the rest of the proof we can assume without loss of generality
that Q = a q U q . Thus, set

[nt]

F n (t)

t i- g iV2£(n)«/2 ^ qy K ' n 1 -i D / 2 L{n)i/ 2
where G n is given by (4.47). Using (4.48), we have that

G n (t), t > 0,

ip(F n (t 1 )...F n (t p ))

[nil] [ntp]

•/ ,. p 9 /2 H E II / ' !/ ' V

v ; fei=l fep=l (ri,...,rp_i)eB(qp) K«<J<P

K) p

ay(r)

(5.60)

where q p = (ft, . . . , q p ) = (q, . . . , q).

To obtain the limit of (5.60) as n — > oo and thus to conclude the proof of (1.10), we proceed in
five steps.

21

Step 1 (Determination of the main term). We split the sum X^L"=i • • • X)lT=l m ^ e right-hand
side of (5.60) into

E + E ■ ( 5 - 61 )

fci=l,...,[nii] fei=l,...,[nti]

kp=l,...,[nt p ] kp=l,...,[nt p ]
Vi^j: \ki-kj\^3 \ki-kj\^2

and we show that the second sum in (5.61) is asymptotically negligible as n — > oo.
Up to reordering, it is enough to show that, for any r = (r 1; . . . , r p _i) G B p ,

■= iFSBScwg 5 E n p(k -- k ' r '' r) (5 - 62)

v ; fcj=l,...,[n*i] l^i<j^P

k p =l,...,[ntp]
| fcp — i fcp | ^ 2

tends to zero as n — > oo. In (5.62), let us bound \p(h — k p )\ by 1 when i G {1, . . . ,p — 1}. We get
that

[nti] [ntp-j]

^< nP -„o /1L , n) „„ E- e n <<*. -*»)-«■

v 7 fci=i fc p _i=i i<i<jXp-i

(5.63)

Going back to Definition 4.1, there is q p _i = (<fi, . . . ,q P -i) and r = (Pi, . . . , f p _2) £ -B(qp-i) such
that ajj(r) = aij(r) for all j = 1, . . . ,p— 1. This is because the connexions between the remaining
p — 1 blocks are unchanged. Moreover, since we remove the q connexions associated to the block p
(this involves 2q dots, see Figure 3), we have

qi + ... + %,_! = (p - 2)g. (5.64)

Hence, using Lemma 4.2 with T = Z, Ui = Y^k=i ^ k i^k being the Dirac mass at k) and
e(k, x) = ek{x) as in (4.52), we get that

[nti] [nip_i] _

E • • • E II - k ^ lj[r) = • • (@U*1> •) ~ &,„(*2, •))-•• •) ? - JM,n(Vl. •)

fei=l fc p _i = l l<i<j^p— 1

(5.65)

where, for any i = 1, . . . , p — 1,

[nti]

9i,n(U,xi, . . .,Xfa) = ^2 e k{xi) ■ ■ ■ ek{xq t ).
k=l

Iterative applications of (2.26) in (5.65) lead to

[nil] [ntp-i]

E'-- E II \P( ki ~ k j)\ aij{r) < Il5l,n(tl,-)IIL2 (M ? 1) . . . ||?p-l,n(ip-l,-)|| L 2 (R ?p- 2) -

ki=l kp-i=l l<i<i<p— 1

22

But, for any i = 1, . . . ,p — 1,

[nti]

\\9i,n(ti,-)\\i* m = £p(*-o* = E p(j) % d nt i]-\j\)

k,l=l \j\<[nti]

= [nt t } + 2 £ r^(3) a ([n*i]-i)
l^i<[ntj]

< [nti] ( 1 + 2 ^ j-* D L(J)* | < Cn 2 -^L(n)^,
\ Ki<Ni] /

for some C > 0, and where the last inequality holds because of (5.59). We deduce

[ntx] [ntp-i]

E'" E It \p( k i- k i)\ aijir) < CnP- 1 -(« + - + ^- 1 ) IJ / 2 L(n)® + - + *- 1 )/ 2

fci=l fc p _i=l l<i<j^p— 1

= Cn^ 1 -^- 2 )^/ 2 L(n)^- 2 )«/ 2 ,

by (5.64). By putting all these bounds together, and because qD < l,we conclude from (5.63) that
R n given by (5.62) tends to zero as n — > oo.

Step 2 (Expressing sums as integrals). We now consider the first term in (5.61) and express it
as an integral, so to apply the dominated convergence theorem.

From Definition 4.1, we deduce immediately that J2i<i<j^ P a ij( r ) = Pl/^ when r =
(ri, . . . , r p _i) G B(qp). This fact, combined with the specific form (1.4) of p, yields

n p-pqD/2L( n yq/2

e En

.\ a ij( r )

fel=l,...,[nti] (ri,..,r p _i)6B(q p ) l^i<Kp
fcp=l,...,[nt p ]

E En

ki=l,...,[nti] (ri,...,r p _i)eB(q P ) l^i<i<P
fcp=l,...,[nt p ]

-Daij(r)

//-!/■•/ A;,).

K) p

f'OO f'OO

E / •••/ ^n,r(si,...,Sp)dsi...ds p ,

/ \^D/ \ ■'0 JO

(ri,...,r p _i)6B(qp)

where

^n,r (fil j • • • ) Sp)

e n

fci=l,...,[nti] Ki<i<p
fej,=l,...,[ntp]

n

-_Doij(r)

I ^(n)

ay(r)'

Xlr fei-l fci-)( s l) • • • lr fcp-l kpASp)-

L n 1 n ' L n 5 n '

S'iep 5 (Pointwise convergence). We show the pointwise convergence of Z njI .. Since, for fixed
\ki — kj\/n and as n — > oo, one has

L(\ki - kj\)/L(n) = L(n x \k { - kj\/n)/L(n) -> 1,

23

one deduces that l n>T (si, . . . , s p ) — >■ £oo,r(si, . . . , s p ) for any s±, . . . , s p G R+, where

ioo,r(si,...,«p) = l[o ltl ](si)...l[o,^](Sp) | Si - Sj\~ Dai ^ r) .

Step 4 (Domination). We show that l n ^ r is dominated by an integrable function. If k{ — kj ^ 3
(the case where kj — ki ^ 3 is similar by symmetry), Si G [^p^, ^f) and Sj G [-^— ; -^f), then

3 /c^ ^7 1

- < < Si H So,

n n n

so that Si — Sj ^ ^ , implying in turn

^— ^^Si-^-i^^^. (5.66)
n n 2

Since g-D < 1, choose a small enough 5 so that q(D + 5) < 1 and L(ki — kj)/L(n) ^ C((ki — kj)/n)~ s
(this is possible thanks to (1.6)). We get that

-(D+S) aij (r)

fel^Sl) • • • lr fcp-l fcpJSp)

m*i.".,«p)i < c e n

fci=l,...,[nti] l<i<j<p

fe p =l ) ...,[nt JJ ]

Vi^j: |fei-fcj|>3

< c2(Wi [0 , (l] ( S1 )...i [0 , (pl ( Sp ) n i^-^r ( ° +5)ay(r) ,

by (5.66). The function in the bound is integrable on Ir?. Indeed, for any fixed r = (n, . . . , G
jB(q p ), we can write, thanks to (4.54) and with fi- q m+6)/2,q given by (3.40),

/ dsi . . . f ds p T\

Jo JO i^„w*

i». _ ,.r( D + s KW

| ^2 |

= C (... ((fl- q (D+S)/2,q(tl, ") ^ fl-q(D+S)/2,q(h, ')) ^ ■ ■ ^ fl-q(D+6)/2,q(tp,

where C > 0, so that by an iterative use of (2.26),

" tl d Sl ... /"^ "TT | s ,- Sl r {D+5)a - (r)

I • / ciSp |-s, - .s ; |

l<i<i^p

^ l|/l-g(£>+5)/2,g(*l3 lli 2 (R<?) • • • ||/l-g(D+5)/2,g(*p: Olk^R?) = (*1 • • • ip) 1-9 ^ 4 " 5 ^ 2 < OO,

where the last equality holds because of (3.42).

Step 5 (Dominated convergence). By combining the results of Steps 2 to 4, we obtain that the
dominated convergence theorem applies and yields

^{F n (t 1 )...F n {t p ))^{a q Y r d Sl ... ^ 'ds p £ [] | Sf _ gi |-D«*i«.

(n,...,r 3 ,_i)eB(q P ) i^<Kp

24

We recognize that, up to a multiplicative constant, this is the quantity in (4.49) with H = l — qD/2.
More precisely, we have

which concludes the proof of (1.10). □

Acknowledgments. We would like to thank two anonymous referees for their careful reading
of the manuscript and for their valuable suggestions and remarks. Also, I. Nourdin would like to
warmly thank M. S. Taqqu for his hospitality during his stay at Boston University in October 2011,
where part of this research was carried out.

References

[1] M. Anshelevich (2004). Appell polynomials and their relatives. Int. Math. Res. Not. 65, 3469-
3531

[2] P. Biane and R. Speicher (1998). Stochastic analysis with respect to free Brownian motion and
analysis on Wigner space. Probab. Theory Rel. Fields 112, 373-409.

[3] N.H. Bingham, CM. Goldie and J.L. Teugels (1989). Regular Variation. 2nd edition,
Cambridge.

[4] P. Breuer and P. Major (1983). Central limit theorems for non-linear functionals of Gaussian
fields. J. Mult. Anal. 13, 425-441.

[5] R. L. Dobrushin and P. Major (1979). Non-central limit theorems for non-linear functions of
Gaussian fields. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw. Gebiete 50, 27-52.

[6] P. Embrechts and M. Maejima (2002). Self similar Processes. Princeton University Press.

[7] D. Hirsch and G. Lacombe (1999). Elements of Functional Analysis. Springer- Verlag.

[8] T. Kemp, I. Nourdin, G. Peccati and R. Speicher (2011). Wigner chaos and the fourth moment.
Ann. Probab., in press.

[9] A. N. Kolmogorov (1940). Wienersche Spiralen und einige andere interessante Kurven im
26, 115-118.

[10] B. B. Mandelbrot and J. W. Van Ness (1968). Fractional Brownian motions, fractional noises
and applications. SIAM Review 10, 422-437.

[11] A. Nica and R. Speicher (2006). Lectures on the Combinatorics of Free Probability. Cambridge
University Press.

[12] I. Nourdin and G. Peccati (to appear, 2012). Normal Approximations Using Malliavin Calculus:
from Stein's Method to Universality. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University
Press.

25

[13] I. Nourdin, G. Peccati and R. Speicher (2011). Multidimensional semicircular limits on the
free Wigner chaos. Ascona 2011 Proceedings, to appear.

[14] G. Peccati and M. S. Taqqu (2011). Wiener Chaos: Moments, Cumulants and Diagrams.
Springer- Verlag, Italia.

[15] M.S. Taqqu (1975). Weak Convergence to Fractional Brownian Motion and to the Rosenblatt
Process. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw. Gebiete 31, 287-302.

[16] M.S. Taqqu (1979). Convergence of integrated processes of arbitrary Hermite rank. Z.
Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw. Gebiete 50, 53-83.

[17] M. S. Taqqu (2003). Fractional Brownian motion and long-range dependence. In: Theory and
Applications of Long-range Dependence, Birkhauser, eds P. Doukhan and G. Oppenheim and
M. S. Taqqu, 5-38.

[18] M. S. Taqqu (2011). The Rosenblatt process. In Richard Davis, Keh-Shin Lii, and Dimitris
Politis, editors, Selected Works of Murray Rosenblatt. Springer Verlag, New York.

[19] D.V. Voiculescu (1985). Symmetries of some reduced free product C*-algebras. Operator
algebras and their connection with topology and ergodic theory, Springer Lecture Notes in
Mathematics 1132, 556-588.

[20] D.V. Voiculescu (1991). Limit laws for random matrices and free product. Invent. Math. 104,
201-220.

[21] E.P. Wigner (1958). On the distribution of the roots of certain symmetric matrices. Ann. of
Math. (2) 67, 325-327.

26

```